Search for: All records

Innovation in ecological restoration is necessary to achieve the ambitious targets established in United Nations conventions and other global restoration initiatives. Innovation is also crucial for navigating uncertainties in repairing and restoring ecosystems, and thus practitioners often develop innovations at project design and implementation stages. However, innovation in ecological restoration can be hindered by many factors (e.g., time and budget constraints, and project complexity). Theory and research on innovation has been formally applied in many fields, yet explicit study of innovation in ecological restoration remains nascent. To assess the use of innovation in restoration projects, including its drivers and inhibitors, we conducted a social survey of restoration practitioners in the United States. Specifically, we assessed relationships between project-based innovation and traits of the individual practitioner (including, for example, age, gender, experience); company (including, for example, company size and company’s inclusion of social goals); project (including, for example, complexity and uncertainty); and project outcomes (such as completing the project on time/on budget and personal satisfaction with the work). We found positive relationships between project-based innovation and practitioner traits (age, gender, experience, engagement with research scientists), one company trait (company’s inclusion of social goals in their portfolio), and project traits (project complexity and length). In contrast, two practitioner traits, risk aversion and the use of industry-specific information, were negatively related to project-based innovation. Satisfaction with project outcomes was positively correlated with project-based innovation. Collectively, the results provide insights into the drivers and inhibitors of innovation in restoration and suggest opportunities for research and application. 

Abstract Even in advanced economies, underperforming infrastructure is a persistent rural development challenge, with the case of non-compliant small drinking water systems (SDWSs) especially concerning because of the importance of safe drinking water to human health. While technical and financial deficits are known contributors to SDWS underperformance in rural settings, the role of local cultural and social context in water governance are less clear. The need for interoperable concepts that help explain how local contextual factors influence rural water governance and operation motivates this study. Drawing on insights from community resilience and critical infrastructure scholarship, this study draws attention to a previously overlooked dimension of local infrastructure governance: social memory. Archival research and 25 semi-structured interviews with experts and local stakeholders inform the paper’s reconstruction of the 100 years history of an SDWS in rural Montana, USA and analysis of the contemporary social memory it has generated. The study finds that social memory acts as a medium through which the lived experience of infrastructure influences priorities and values about its governance, especially in the context of small towns. Three major themes in the dynamics of social memory of infrastructure are described, including longevity, aesthetic and material qualities, and articulation with economic trajectories. In addition to establishing social memory as an effective conceptualization of the generative influence of infrastructure in water governance at the local scale, the paper has implications for policy; specifically, the observation that in addition to financial and technical capacity, historical experience is a powerful driver of infrastructure governance and outcomes such as underperformance. 

Over the last decade, there has been a remarkable increase in scientific literature addressing human–wildlife interactions (HWI) and associated concepts, such as coexistence, tolerance, and acceptance. Despite increased attention, these terms are rarely defined or consistently applied across publications. Indeed, the meaning of these concepts, especially coexistence, is frequently assumed and left for the reader to interpret, making it hard to compare studies, test metrics, and build upon previous HWI research. To work toward a better understanding of these terms, we conducted two World Café sessions at international conferences in Namibia, Africa and Ontario, Canada. Here, we present the array of perspectives revealed in the workshops and build upon these results to describe the meaning of coexistence as currently applied by conservation scientists and practitioners. Although we focus on coexistence, it is imperative to understand the term in relation to tolerance and acceptance, as in many cases these latter terms are used to express, measure, or define coexistence. Drawing on these findings, we discuss whether a common definition of these terms is possible and how the conservation field might move toward clarifying and operationalizing the concept of human-wildlife coexistence. 

Growing demand for water resources coupled with climate-driven water scarcity and variability present critical challenges to agriculture in the Western US. Despite extensive resources allocated to downscaling climate projections and advances in understanding past, current, and future climatic conditions, climate information is underutilized in decisions made by agricultural producers. Climate information providers need to understand why this information is underutilized and what would better meet the needs of producers. To better understand how agricultural producers perceive and utilize climate information, we conducted five focus groups with farmers and ranchers across Montana. Focus groups revealed that there are fundamental scalar issues (spatial and temporal) that make climate information challenging for producers to use. While climate information is typically produced at regional, national, or global spatial scales and at a seasonal and mid- to end-of-century temporal scales, producers indicated that decision-making takes place at multiple intermediate and small temporal and spatial scales. In addition, producers described other drivers of decision-making that have little to do with climate information itself, but rather aspects of source credibility, past experience, trust in information, and the politics of climate change. Through engaging directly with end-users, climate information providers can better understand the spatial and temporal scales that align with different types of agricultural producers and decisions, as well as the limitations of information provision given the complexity of the decision context. Increased engagement between climate information providers and end-users can also address the important tradeoffs that exist between scale and uncertainty.